Did Jesus cease being God's Son on the Cross?

[John of Japan]

Thankfully I have plenty of time at work for study (obviously....since I'm "working" now).

I do worry about not having a job to go to when I retire, but I think I'll get used to it quickly.

I get a week off each month, so my wife and I travel.

Which reminds me....gotta ask @John of Japan what are must she's in Kyoto. Headed there in a couple of weeks. We're having lunch with a Baptist pastor in a town nearby.

Well brother, you're asking about the one main city I never went to in Japan! My stomping grounds were elsewhere, Yokohama and then Hokkaido. But everyone says Kyoto is beautiful and there are tons of great places to visit there. So have a great time! And don't take any wooden 5 yen coins.

 

[JesusFan]

I'm obviously not Lutheran, although there are some points of agreement. I wanted to see @DaveXR650 's argument, but he didnt have one.

To defend Luther:

Luther believed that Jesus humbled Himself to be less than God, less than the angles, and less than man (the sum of human sins). This is why he says "ceased to be the Son of God". But at the same time Jesus is God, is righteous, is greater than man and the angles.

This is the key to Luther's Atonement theory (it's like Augustine's theory in many ways).

God laid the sum of the sins of mankind on Jesus, making Jesus less than any single man. Satan used the Law, used God's curse, against Jesus. Jesus submitted to Satan's punishment. But Jesus is also God, sinless, eternal. This nullified the Law Satan had used and crushed the Serpent, freeing us from the bondage of evil.

So yep...I picked a statement and asked Dave to affirm or defend it. Dave didn't get the game and tossed eggs from the sideline.

Now Aaron is back (I can't remember his new name). He and I don't get along, but he gets the game.

So Luther, per you, held to Kenosis heresy then?

I agree. I believe had He not then we couldn't follow His example in how we live.

Reading Psalm 22 I'm always struck by the faith of the Servant. He is suffering, but always relying on God's faithfulness as He recounts how God has proven Himself faithful.

So when I read of Jesus walking on water I believe this was the faith Peter ended up lacking, but the faith we strive for.

It is total submission. And we are not there yet, but I believe we will be.

Jesus was always still fully God, so still had all divine powers, jhe just chose to limit Himself using them while on earth as Servant of the Lord

As being the Son of God and also being the same God cannot cease. As the.incarnate man bearing our sins was forsaken by God the Father, receiving the death of His soul per Isaiah 53:12, to not be a man per Psalm 22:6, But I am a worm, and no man; . . . .

So Jesus physical died in His humanity, yet still remained alive as still fully God?

Luther made it absolutely clear that he believed the Kenosis. I do as well.

Christ "emotied," Himself, humbled Himself and during His ministry relied on the Spirit and faith in the Father. He did all things not of His own power but of Him that sint Him.

Did he ever cease to be fully God while upon the earth?

Jesus IS God. He and the Father are One. This cannot change.

Do yo see Him as not having his full powers and attributes while upon the earth, or that he still retained them but chose to limit Himself to not use them?

 

[37818]

As being the Son of God and also being the same God cannot cease. As the.incarnate man bearing our sins was forsaken by God the Father, receiving the death of His soul per Isaiah 53:12, to not be a man per Psalm 22:6, But I am a worm, and no man; . . . .

 

[JonC]

So Luther, per you, held to Kenosis then?

Luther made it absolutely clear that he believed the Kenosis. I do as well.

Christ "emotied," Himself, humbled Himself and during His ministry relied on the Spirit and faith in the Father. He did all things not of His own power but of Him that sint Him.

Did he ever cease to be fully God while upon the earth?

Jesus IS God. He and the Father are One. This cannot change.

Do yo see Him as not having his full powers and attributes while upon the earth, or that he still retained them but chose to limit Himself to not use them?

I see Him as emptying Himself and becoming flesh, relying on the Father and the Spirit, doing nothing of His own accord but the will of Him that sent Him. And after His death I see the Father raising Him to the glory He once had.

How could Jesus be glorified to the glory He once Had if He never set aside that glory?

So Jesus physical died in His humanity, yet still remained alive as still fully God?

This seems odd. "Died in His humanity"?

I think it best to say that Jesus, who is God and man, experienced death for us.

 

[JesusFan]

Luther made it absolutely clear that he believed the Kenosis. I do as well.

Christ "emotied," Himself, humbled Himself and during His ministry relied on the Spirit and faith in the Father. He did all things not of His own power but of Him that sint Him.


Jesus IS God. He and the Father are One. This cannot change.


I see Him as emptying Himself and becoming flesh, relying on the Father and the Spirit, doing nothing of His own accord but the will of Him that sent Him. And after His death I see the Father raising Him to the glory He once had.

How could Jesus be glorified to the glory He once Had if He never set aside that glory?


This seems odd. "Died in His humanity"?

I think it best to say that Jesus, who is God and man, experienced death for us.

Jesus as Deity could never die, but in His humanity did experience physical death

 

[JonC]

Jesus as Deity could never die, but in His humanity did experience physical death

I disagree. But I admit I hold the Doctrine of the Trinity to be true (I believe Jesus's divinity and humanity are inseparable).

Jesus experienced physical death on the cross. Jesus is God-man.

We, who are saved, will never die.

Do you believe you will experience death in the flesh?

 

[JesusFan]

I disagree. But I admit I hold the Doctrine of the Trinity to be true (I believe Jesus's divinity and humanity are inseparable).

Jesus experienced physical death on the cross. Jesus is God-man.

We, who are saved, will never die.

Do you believe you will experience death in the flesh?

Jesus has 2 distinct natures within Himself, that of Deity, the very nature of God, and that of sinless humanity, He died a physical death in His humanity, while still was alive in Hades as God still

Yes, unless the Second Coming happens in our lifetimes, all of us posting here shall taste physical death

 

[JonC]

Jesus has 2 distinct natures within Himself, that of Deity, the very nature of God, and that of sinless humanity, He died a physical death in His humanity, while still was alive in Hades as God still

Yes, unless the Second Coming happens in our lifetimes, all of us posting here shall taste physical death

Yes, "distinct". What else does the Doctrine of the Trinity say? "Inseparable".

But yes, Jesus experienced the "first death". He did not experience the "Second death" (He was not cast into the Lake of Fire to endure everlasting punishment for rejecting the Light).

And Jesus is both the Son of God and the Son of Adam, but not either-or.

 

[JesusFan]

Yes, "distinct". What else does the Doctrine of the Trinity say? "Inseparable".

But yes, Jesus experienced the "first death". He did not experience the "Second death" (He was not cast into the Lake of Fire to endure everlasting punishment for rejecting the Light).

And Jesus is both the Son of God and the Son of Adam, but not either-or.

Jesus partake while upon that cross all that we were meant to experience as being lost sinners, and while HE NEVER ceased to be God, nor spiritual died, he still felt the horror of all lost sinners will in their final judgement

 

[JonC]

Jesus partake while upon that cross all that we were meant to experience as being lost sinners, and while HE NEVER ceased to be God, nor spiritual died, he still felt the horror of all lost sinners will in their final judgement

There are a few problems with your theory:

1. It is not in the Bible
2. The Judgment is centered on Christ, not our sins
3. While sin produces death, the Second death is a direct action of God's wrath on the wicked
4. The Judgment is at a specific time. Being born of the Spirit negates the Second death for believers.

You and I hold very different presuppositions when it comes to doctrine. I am what some call "sola scriptura" (I believe foundational doctrines are what is written in Scripture). You reject "sola scriptura" (you believe what men who say what you like say is taught by the Bible).

Until you are able to accept Scrioture as God's perfect and complete Word we can never really discuss these doctrines in a meaningful way. The reason is to you what men you like have said is equivalent to God's Word, but to me "what is written" is God's Word and our criteria.

 

[JesusFan]

There are a few problems with your theory:

1. It is not in the Bible
2. The Judgment is centered on Christ, not our sins
3. While sin produces death, the Second death is a direct action of God's wrath on the wicked
4. The Judgment is at a specific time. Being born of the Spirit negates the Second death for believers.

You and I hold very different presuppositions when it comes to doctrine. I am what some call "sola scriptura" (I believe foundational doctrines are what is written in Scripture). You reject "sola scriptura" (you believe what men who say what you like say is taught by the Bible).

Until you are able to accept Scrioture as God's perfect and complete Word we can never really discuss these doctrines in a meaningful way. The reason is to you what men you like have said is equivalent to God's Word, but to me "what is written" is God's Word and our criteria.

The basic difference between us on these issues is that I do see what I hold to as being taught in the bible, and yet not claiming to being infallible as to what it teaches to us, so cannot just cavaliar state what you hold is "man made, not in the bible"
And will still say that Reformed and majority Baptists are still against your takes on these doctrines being discussed

 

[JonC]

The basic difference between us on these issues is that I do see what I hold to as being taught in the bible, and yet not claiming to being infallible as to what it teaches to us, so cannot just cavaliar state what you hold is "man made, not in the bible"
And will still say that Reformed and majority Baptists are still against your takes on these doctrines being discussed

The difference between us is that I believe foundational doctrines must be in God's Word and you do not.

My doctrine can stand the test we are told to use for doctrine (test doctrine against "what is written".
Yours cannot.

My doctrine is something we are commanded to believe, although interpretations can differ within that belief.

Your doctrine is what we are commanded to resist (it fails the test).


I do not look to Reformed theologians for doctrine. That is true. I look to God and His Word. This is another area where we differ.

Jehovah Witnesses believe their doctrine is taught by Scripture.
So do Catholics.

How are you any better? You look to the Reformers to tell you what Scripture teaches, Catholics look to a pope, SDA's to Ellen White, Mormons to their leaders.


Why not simply look to God? Why not simply believe God's Word as being what God's Word teaches?

 

[JesusFan]

The difference between us is that I believe foundational doctrines must be in God's Word and you do not.

My doctrine can stand the test we are told to use for doctrine (test doctrine against "what is written".
Yours cannot.

My doctrine is something we are commanded to believe, although interpretations can differ within that belief.

Your doctrine is what we are commanded to resist (it fails the test).


I do not look to Reformed theologians for doctrine. That is true. I look to God and His Word. This is another area where we differ.

Jehovah Witnesses believe their doctrine is taught by Scripture.
So do Catholics.

How are you any better? You look to the Reformers to tell you what Scripture teaches, Catholics look to a pope, SDA's to Ellen White, Mormons to their leaders.


Why not simply look to God? Why not simply believe God's Word as being what God's Word teaches?

I do hold to sola scriptura, have studied the bible in Greek and Hebrew and English texts, and it just that what I beleive bible teaches in certain areas same as Reformed also do, we came to same conclusions based upon scripture alone

 

[JonC]

I do hold to sola scriptura, have studied the bible in Greek and Hebrew and English texts, and it just that what I beleive bible teaches in certain areas same as Reformed also do, we came to same conclusions based upon scripture alone

No, you do not.

IF you held to sola scriptura then you would hold to Scripture alone in terms of determining doctrine.

But you do not. You hold to what men who you like said the Bible teaches to be true, not Scripture alone.

You test doctrine against what you believe Scripture teaches, and what men you like believed, not what is written in God's Word.

You like the term "sola scriptura", but you ate FAR from holding it.


A Jehovah Witness will often come to the same conclusion as other Jehova Wirnesses
You did not come to the same conclusion as Luther. You looked for and found men you liked to validate your belief.


What if Scripture really teaches "what is written" in Scripture?

You treat Scripture as Jazz....it's not about there but about what's not there.